Group says Wehr's Dam should come down

Wehr's Dam has been a fixture along the Jordan Creek in South Whitehall for more than a century. Built of timber and concrete like thousands of dams in waterways across Pennsylvania, it has outlived by more than six decades the grist mill it was built to power.

But the dam's proximity to Wehr's Covered Bridge, one of the handful of historic wooden bridges in the Lehigh Valley, gives it a goose-bump appeal that few others generate. Visitors are drawn to the cascading sound of water at Covered Bridge Park and the picture-perfect setting of the bridge by the dam. They describe it as nothing short of majestic, even magical.

It attracts picnickers, youth groups and scouts. Photo-seekers, tube-floaters and trout-seeking anglers. On a recent afternoon, a Parkland High School student was getting her senior photo taken there, as many have before her.

"The beauty of it … there's no comparison to it," said Ulla Martz, who has lived near the dam for 34 years.

But practicality and the needs of nature dictate that the century-old structure should come down, say environmentalists and organizations that advocate for improvements to fish passage and water quality along creeks and rivers.

William Wehr and his daughter Lori Wehr Young hope to save Wehr's Dam from its possible removal. They have a Save Wehr's Dam petition already with eight-hundred signatures to save the one-hundred and ten year old dam. (JIMI MCCULLIAN / THE MORNING CALL)

In a state that leads the nation in dam removals, Wehr's Dam, which stands 6 feet high and stretches 165 feet across Jordan Creek, won't be going down without a fight from a growing group of advocates clinging tightly to a piece of their heritage.

A proposal by Wildlands Conservancy to remove Wehr's Dam, as it has removed many other dams, has pitted conservationists against historical preservationists in a clash that could play out well into 2015. And that science vs. sentiment debate may be a prelude for what's to come in other communities in Lehigh and Northampton counties.

"It's not a Wildlands thing," said Abigail Pattishall, Wildlands' vice president of conservation. "It's a national movement. This is definitely an issue that South Whitehall, Allentown, Bethlehem, Whitehall [and other municipalities] have to face."

Advocates of dam demolition point to myriad benefits of a natural-flowing stream they say is better for fish, water quality and the overall health of waterways. Opponents generally want to preserve the aesthetic beauty of dams, their historic nature and the pleasing sound of the water falls they create.

The movement to take down dams is hardly a new phenomenon. American Rivers, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that protects rivers and restores damaged waterways, says nearly 1,150 dams have been removed in the country during the last century. That's a fraction of the 76,000 dams in the United States cataloged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Pennsylvania regulates about 3,370 dams across the state, including Wehr's Dam, which is inspected every five years, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. But the agency said there could be as many as 10,000 dams statewide. Only dams that meet certain criteria, including the acreage of their drainage area and water depth, are regulated.

Pennsylvania is "by far" the national leader in dam removals, with more than 200 since 2000, according to Laura Craig, associate director of American Rivers' River Restoration Program.

Craig's group and others say those projects restore more beneficial water flows for fish and wildlife. Dams, they say, have contributed to diminished fish populations. Wildlands says dams create pools of water that are too warm and too low in oxygen to support healthy fish and aquatic insect populations. They also create a sediment buildup at the stream bottom that eliminates places where insects eaten by fish can lay their eggs.

"If you look at it from an environmental side, a naturalist side, the un-dammed river is now flowing in a more natural state and sediment is moving down [the waterway] and fish can move upstream," said David Velinsky, vice president of the Patrick Center for Environmental Research at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. "On the flip side, because of flooding and storms and so forth, there is greater erosion in some areas.

"If you're looking to increase fish potential and the ecological services of these rivering systems, it's better to start un-damming."

Wildlands, which is based in Lower Macungie, notes water levels lower when dams are removed. That, coupled with stream bank restoration, reduces flooding. Removing dams also may spare dam owners the costs of repairs and maintenance and eliminates a potential safety hazard.

The state Fish & Boat Commission, in a publication on dams, says: "Of all the things you may encounter on a river or stream, the low-head dam is one of the most dangerous. In fact, if an engineer designed an efficient, unattended, self-operated drowning machine, it would be hard to come up with anything more effective than a low-head dam under certain flow conditions."

While Wehr's Dam is technically a run-of-the-river dam, the type built across a waterway for the purpose of impounding water, the commission says such dams can have the same dangerous currents that swamp vessels and drag down swimmers in a low-head dam.

Among the top safety concerns are structural deficiencies that can lead to a dam break and threaten lives, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. Older dams are more susceptible to failure. The association says nearly a third of Pennsylvania's regulated dams have "high hazard potential" or "significant hazard potential" a label that refers to the potential consequences of a dam's failure.

Wehr's Dam is classified as a "low hazard" dam.

For those lobbying to keep the dam, there is a historical and emotional attachment to consider, in addition to a recreational benefit. Locals say anglers are known to line up by the dozens upstream of the dam on the first day of fishing season. Historically, dams have been created for water supplies — irrigation for agriculture, hydroelectric power for mills, and water recreation.

While many dams are torn down without a peep from the public, Wehr's Dam has prompted residents and history buffs to dig in for a fight.

'A magical spot'

William Wehr, a descendant of William H. Wehr, who helped build the dam in 1904 and once owned the mill, concurs with those fighting the Wildlands' effort. He and his daughter, Lori Wehr Young, are among those working with Save Wehr's Dam, a group that has garnered about 1,000 signatures on a petition to keep the dam intact. They don't necessarily dispute Wildlands' scientific argument but believe the dam's beauty and history are reason enough to preserve it.

If the dam is removed, a beautiful view will disappear, along with "the complete magic of the park," said Lori Wehr Young.

Had it not been for the dam and William H. Wehr's entrepreneurship, said Ron Turner, who has lived near the dam for three decades and also is part of the group, "this whole area would not have enjoyed the economic prosperity it did." Without the dam, he noted, there would have been no mill and without the mill, the area's future may have been different.

Michael Molovinsky, a blogger running for a seat in the state House of Representatives, is part of the group organized to save what he called an "icon," "a magical spot." He argues the dam reduces the frequency at which portions of the creek dry up, a claim disputed by Wildlands.

Because the township owns the dam, South Whitehall commissioners ultimately will decide the structure's fate.

Pattishall has told the commissioners that dam removal is supported by an "endless list" of environmental and recreational groups and agencies, including Trout Unlimited and American Whitewater, which works to restore flows to white-water rivers. Removing Wehr's Dam, the advocates argue, would improve the Jordan Creek, which is home to trout, smallmouth bass, rock bass and a variety of forage fish such as minnows.

The Wildlands, which has photos of cracks in the dam, says the structure is showing its age. It's not clear how much the township spends on maintenance of the dam. The township did not respond to requests for that information.

The state Department of Environmental Protection and the Fish & Boat Commission say they don't have a position on dam removals, but state law requires a dam be removed if the owner no longer wants to maintain it. The agencies facilitate removals when owners select that option.

The state's Historical and Museum Commission does not judge the historical significance of dams. But the commission investigates whether dam projects will affect historic resources, which in the case of Wehr's Dam could include nearby Wehr's Covered Bridge, which was built in 1841, restored and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

During a review of a dam in Wernersville, for example, the agency determined that the removal would have an impact on Wernersville State Hospital, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The agency determined the project would adversely affect the "historic and architectural qualities that make the property eligible."

A federal judge in Oregon made a different determination in a 2010 case that ended with the removal of a century-old dam. The judge said opponents of the demolition hadn't proved, among other things, the historical significance of the dam.

Social impacts

The Delaware River Shad Fishermen's Association generally advocates for the removal of dams that compromise the "bio productivity" of waterways.

"The population of migratory fish along the East Coast has crashed. They're not able to get to breeding areas, and they're being overfished by commercial fisheries," said Charles Furst, the organization's president. "That's why it's so important to remove dams, in our opinion. Healthier rivers translate to a healthier bay, which translates to a healthier ocean.

While many experts agree there are multiple benefits to dam removal, there isn't an abundance of data in Pennsylvania to document that opinion. Few of those projects are accompanied by ecological assessments.

Studies done on dam removals across the country generally indicate an increase in the amount of sediment that moves downstream from behind the dam once it's removed, potentially affecting a stream or river adversely.

A 2002 report on the science and decision-making of dam removals by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment noted that every dam removal project is unique.

"When dam owners, governmental agencies, interest groups and private citizens debate removal options for specific structures, the decision-making process often needs to be reinvented for each case, with no accounting for scientific understanding of the likely outcomes of the decision," the report says.

While noting the many biological benefits of dam removal, the study also notes the social aspects, which groups like Wildlands acknowledge.

"This is a serious shortcoming, because the social context of dam removal decisions is often as important as the environmental and economic contexts," the report says.

Past studies do show what possible outcomes can be realized. In 1999, the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and the University of Delaware teamed up to study the removal of a dam along the Manatawny Creek in the Pottstown area.

Scientists found that the dam's removal did not markedly improve water quality in the creek, according to a 2002 article in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association. The study also found that some fish species were negatively affected when their habitats were altered and sentiment shifted.

It notes the 1973 removal of a dam on the upper Hudson River that had "far-reaching ecosystem consequences." PCB-contaminated sediment settled over a nearly 200-mile stretch of the river, and commercial fishing of striped bass was banned.

Velinsky, a bio geochemist who was involved with the Manatawny study, said the project along that creek led to more stream-bank erosion that required more stream maintenance.

Elizabeth Grossman, an Oregon journalist who wrote "Watershed: The Undamming of America," chronicled a number of dam removals for her book, published in 2002. She said sentimentality for dams was a common theme.

"In a lot of places, once people could see what it was going to look like and that they could see they would still have recreational amenities," they eventually accepted the change.

She said it's difficult to generalize about dam removals because the impact varies from place to place.

"Each one of these is really complicated," she said.

The cost of removing a dam averages around $75,000, according to Craig of American Rivers, which has been involved in about 200 dam removals nationally. But more money usually is needed to restore a creek and flood plain.

Most recently, Atlas Dam in Northampton was scheduled to come down. While its demise was delayed by public outcry, earlier this year the effort to raze it won a $420,900 grant from DEP.

Wildlands Conservancy has said it has lined up funding to remove Wehr's Dam. It worked with Allentown and Whitehall Township last year to remove six dams in Jordan Creek and Little Lehigh Creek.

Funding for that work came from multiple sources, including the state, American Rivers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fish America Foundation and private organizations, according to Wildlands.

In 2013, Bethlehem removed a 50-foot dam in the Monocacy Creek to reduce flooding. In Easton, city officials decided against removing the Chain and Easton dams following hot debate last year.

South Whitehall, in a comprehensive 2013 study of Covered Bridge Park, estimated dam removal costs at $150,000. The study notes the proposal is part of an initiative to get rid of nine dams along the creek.

But the study also notes the dam's virtues.

"The dam remains a favorite spot along the Jordan Creek for photographers taking advantage of the setting in relation to Wehr's Covered Bridge." Its removal would "significantly impact" the creek, the study says. "Without proper planning, sediment bars will form and most likely raise Jordan Creek."

Craig, whose group has funded portions of projects along the Little Lehigh Creek, said opponents' concerns can sometimes be addressed.

In New Jersey, for example, one of the primary concerns about removal of the Finesville Dam along the Musconetcong River was the loss of the soothing sound the dam had provided for decades.

To quell those concerns, Craig said, boulders were added to the waterway to help mimic the sound of the rolling water.

"It mocks the sound very nicely," she said.

American Rivers, Wildlands and other groups say they consider the social and cultural impact of dam removals. In many cases, removed dams are memorialized with signs and photos at the dam site. In some cases, portions of dams have been left up as a compromise.

South Whitehall commissioners agreed to let Wildlands look into the costs and impact of removing the dam. But they also decided to do their own study of the costs and maintenance involved in keeping the dam.

Pattishall said her group likely would have a study finished in six months and that a removal project, if approved, would likely happen in 2016. Her organization is not trying to force the township's hand, she said. If South Whitehall decides to keep the dam, she said, "we'll move on to the next one."